ARCH - What If

[Archie/Sebastian]

Howdy;

    Thanks, and yes I am.

Sebastian
----- Original Message -----
From: Dewart, Charles R. --G3 Contractor (Anteon Corp)
<Charles.Dewart at hood.army.mil>
To: <ansteorra-archery at ansteorra.org>
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 3:21 PM
Subject: RE: ARCH - What If


> Hey There!!!
>
> Welcome back.
>
> Ready to do a little shootin?
>
> Gilli
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Archie/Sebastian [mailto:sbstn at ev1.net]
> Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 1:06 AM
> To: ansteorra-archery at ansteorra.org
> Subject: Re: ARCH - What If
>
>
> Damn well said.  Thank you for doing so.
>
> Don Sebastian Frobishire
> Royal Huntsman of Ansteorra
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Patrick J. Cuccurello <pat at adtelusa.com>
> To: <ansteorra-archery at ansteorra.org>
> Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 3:19 PM
> Subject: RE: ARCH - What If
>
>
> > >  Old age is setting in -- I'm not sure what you are asking me.....
> > > If you are saying that I'm presenting a case that archers should be
> > > considered for Centurians - why yes, I am. I think they should be
> because
> > > archers are invalid in melee combat.  Of course I haven't read the
> by-law,
> > > laws, folkways or mores on what it takes to be a Centurians so I
imagine
> > > that I will probably get shot down in a minute gleefully by and
archer.
> > > Currently Centurians don't think that is a good idea.  They like
> thinking
> > > combat is only sticks being held in the hand and hit not thrown....
> > > My personal take is combat is combat and should be judged by the
> > > fighter and the weapon choice.
> > > Of course, wait until you hear my opinions on art versus craft, art
> > > versus science, etc. etc.
> >
> >
> > I understand <<grin>>
> >
> > My point was an earlier argument was that Archery should be covered
under
> > the existing structure because target archery should be an art, and
combat
> > archery should be combat.   The fact that the Chivalric community
> considers
> > this as a completely separate art precludes it from being part of it.
It
> > was for that reason the White Scarf was created for the rapier
community.
> > The fact that performance on the target archery field is not considered
in
> > Arts and Sciences competitions precludes it from involvement in that
area.
> >
> > That being the case, it is difficult to not use rapier example for the
> > archery area.  The parallels are the same. Consequently the only
remaining
> > argument is whether archery is as "main stream" as rapier was when the
> White
> > Scarf was introduced.   My opinion is that it is for these reasons:
> >
> > 1.  It requires it's own administrative structure, and that structure is
> > already in place and has matured over the years  (the archery
> marshallate).
> >
> > 2.  It requires it's own logistics at events and area duly separated and
> > differentiated from other area  (they have their own archery field, list
> > boundaries, archery targets, conventions on conduct, and
> waterbearer/support
> > personnel.  They also have their own social gatherings within their
group
> > with the "Archery Flight" pot-lucks sponsored at events).
> >
> > 3.  It has created it's own sub-culture within the SCA that many times
> does
> > not interact with other aspects of the game. They are their own defined
> and
> > recognizable group within the game. (Chivalric units camping together,
> > Rapier combatants camping in the same area, Equestrians camping with
their
> > horses, Coursing people camping in the Kennel Lands, Archers camping
near
> > the target field).
> >
> > 4.  When it does interact with other subcultures within the SCA, it
> impacts
> > them in a sizeable manner. (It is such a telling force upon the
> battlefield
> > that it is usually limited to only certain scenarios in order to not
> > infringe on the enjoyment of the Chivalric fighters).
> >
> > 5.  Involvement at SCA function is by a great enough number of people
that
> > they are readily identified by what they are doing.  (This usually isn't
> two
> > or three people shooting at a target butt on the other side of the
trees).
> >
> > 6.  Finally, in Period, where it was not a venue for the Nobility
(except
> > for hunting), it was a documentable part of medieval society and was a
> focus
> > for much of history and pivotal battles.  Yet by its nature, was held
> > separate in medieval society from everything else and seldom entered
into
> > the nobility of the Knightly class or Arts and Sciences of the time
> (except
> > in construction--which is not what we are discussing).
> >
> >
> > Now many can draw parallels with other portions of the SCA that fulfill
> many
> > of these criteria.  My point is that Archery fulfills *all* of these,
and
> > has been doing so for many years.  Hence it is not only a distinct part
of
> > the SCA but a mature one as well.
> >
> > By saying that we don't need any more Grant level awards you purposely
> limit
> > your ability to change as society and people's perceptions change.  And
> for
> > what purpose, one less possible award given away at Court?  Can archery
> fit
> > in under any number of other areas?  Yes, if you are willing to place it
> > there and  **change the perception of the entire populous to match
yours.
> > Even though most look at archery as something completely different than
> > combat or Arts and Sciences.**  This is also despite the fact that
> > historical documentation of the art and the SCA's societal dealing with
> > archers does not support the idea of lumping them in with another area.
> >
> > Pet.
>
============================================================================
> Go to http://lists.ansteorra.org/lists.html to perform mailing list tasks.
>

============================================================================
Go to http://lists.ansteorra.org/lists.html to perform mailing list tasks.